The rise of the fascist American state

I'm actually not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I'm against citizens being held without trial. On the other, I think there is a good case that once you take up arms against the nation as a member of say, Al-Queda, you should lose access to the court system the rest of us have.

In the end, I think that the law is unnecessary and could be badly misused. If you take up arms against the U.S. as an American citizen on U.S. soil, we should just try you for treason.

It's a bad law. Ron Paul is right on this matter and the others are wrong. I would think much like Obamacare, that upon review by the Federal Courts and specifically the Supreme Court, that it would be overturned.

I find this to be rather funny.

Not only did Obama fail to close Gitmo, like he promised that he would, but instead, now Americans will be sent to Gitmo.

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...etention-obama

Why would you find that disturbing? I don't think you understand my meaning. I'm saying it's an unnecessary law because we already have processes for dealing with people that take up arms against the country....it's called "treason" and it's the only crime defined in the Constitution.

This is another installment in a long term trend to gradually heat the water .. as in the "boiling frog" scenario.

Readiness Exercise 1984... called for the suspension of the US Constitution and declaration of martial law in the event of "a national emergency". Drafted by Col. Oliver North and modeled after a 1970 FEMA plan to imprison millions of black Americans in the event of an uprising in that community. It also called for powers to arbitrarily imprison US citizens who were opposed to war.

Former VP Cheney wanted to bestow dictatorial powers upon the White House long before the Bush Administration, or 9/11.

In 1995, Joe Biden wrote the framework for what became the USA "Patriot" Act. He claimed this in response to the Oklahoma City Bombing... but he was lying: his work in drafting this was completed in February 1995, some 5 weeks prior to the OKC bombing.

Spying on American citizens by government agencies, unconstitutional from US soil, was being sought well before 9/11.

KBR (subsidiary of Halliburton) was awarded a $384 million in 2005 contract to build detention centers in the event of "an immigration emergency" (!).

The above is the tip of the iceberg.

Some of these measures proposed in the latter half of the 20th century remained dormant, perhaps lacking a significant "shock and awe" type of event to galvanize the citizenry into supporting measures as extreme as these.

Any further decay wouldn't need anything quite as drastic as 9/11.. .. a few truck bombs in city centers killing a few hundred, with the finger pointed towards any number of assigned boogeymen du jours (Iran, al Qaeda, Occupy Wall Street, Right Wing militia groups or 2nd Amendment supporters), for a few examples, would permit another step up in liberty-curtailment, mass surveillance and maximum security measures, checkpoints and the paranoid accoutrements of martial law.

Do people feel that because we have a constitutional republic (using approximately democratic methods), the USA is immune to what has happened in so many other nations in modern history?

This crap will only end when the people wake up from their slumber, reclaim our public airwaves from the purveyors and backers of fear, and take things into our own hands.

Just don't buy it's one big conspiracy that the "powers that be" have been pushing for decades. I just don't. To me it's the unfortunate natural erosion of liberties that takes place over time.

.

The "natural erosion of liberties that take place over time" are part of what happens with big, intrusive government. Governments tend towards taking away liberties, rather than voluntarily granting them. The rights we (often) take for granted were not gained without lengthy, protracted courses of action from ordinary people, often at great sacrifice.

Agreed. All I'm saying is I don't think it's some conspiracy.

It doesn't require a conscious conspiracy, as such. When people get into positions of power, access, privilege, etc. 99% abuse that status by lording it over those without such. A civilized society creates checks and balances to mitigate this aspect of human nature.

Everyone is against terrorism, except terrorists and those who promote, or even cause terrorism, in order to fight it (the problem-reaction-solution thing). This makes it very easy for politicians who are addicted to the projection of power, under the guise of "fighting terrorism", to hoodwink the public into giving up hard earned, and fought-for rights and liberties, without resistance from the public. Nobody wants to be against a government that is fighting terrorism, lest they be classified as a 'supporter of terrorism'. It's an ace card for rogue politicians (from left to right), and it's a hard one to resist.

How many senators and congresspeople voted for the "Patriot" Act, or the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, or S-1867 and a whole slew of other measures and laws under the threat of being ostracized by their peers? In the case of the Patriot Act, hardly anyone read it... and voted for it on a knee jerk. S1867 is more suited to Argentina under General Galtieri, or North Korea under "Krazy Kim", than a constitutional republic.

Again, this assumes some sort of conspiracy ("hoodwinking the public"). I don't believe that it's some sort of agenda that most of Congress has. You could make the case that Patriot was an overreaction, or done out of fear, or even that there are certain people who wanted those provisions for years. That's as far as I'm willing to go.


I don't know. How about you tell us? Maybe you could provide some evidence that even one did instead of just asking a loaded question.


Show me that's true.


Possibly.


This is where you go completely off the rails. Tell me, sammi, which parts of the Patriot Act do you find so objectionable, specifically?

Fair enough.


Oh come on. One of the most extremist measures in 200 years... and there wasn't even a debate in Congress! A vote without a debate relies on what? Did those lazy bums in Congress read it in their spare time? Did they hell, they were probably lunching with their favorite corporate lobbyists.


Nobody has the time to read through the whole thing to sift out specifics. All of it would be my short answer.

The "Patriot" Act has given unwarranted power to the executive branch unchecked by meaningful judicial review. It eliminates the checks and balances which distinguish between governments in the "free" world and totalitarian states.

The "Patriot" (sic) Act violates due process for all Americans. All the president has to do is call a citizen an "enemy combatant," and the person's due process rights disappear. One doesn't have to be a "terrorist". Anyone who exposes crimes in high places is a target, for example.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment." This new authority could be used against American citizens in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism, immigrants within our borders legally, and those whose First Amendment activities are deemed threats to national security by the Attorney General.

It's a law that equates free speech and expression with sedition. It has evolved into over 7,000 pages of treacherous legalese designed to interrupt questioning of government policy.

A nation in which the executive branch can suspend normal justice procedures for anyone and everyone they deem "enemy of the state", for "reasons" which remain secret... That's paranoia. That's Stalinism.

So I'll just put you down as refusing to answer.


That's an absurd and totally unbalanced answer.


How? Specifics, please.


It's not quite the simple. First of all, only the President can do this. It certainly doesn't violate the due process rights of "all Americans."


Source?


Which authority? The police can plant drugs in my car too...that doesn't mean they will.


Now you're just being poetic!


They can't suspend "normal" justice procedures or anyone and everyone, nor have they. There have been a handful of enemy combatants--people who took up arms against the country. I suppose we should let the courts sort it out, though.

The fact of the matter is that most of the Patriot Act simply modernizes how intelligence and law enforcement communities work together. It breaks down outmoded walls between agencies like the CIA and FBI in relation to fighting terrorism. You'd be hard pressed to find many Stalin-esque violations or anything close. In fact, you'd have a hard time demonstrating what freedoms most of us have lost as a result.

How's that hopie changie stuff workin' out for ya?

Someone told me years ago when I was residing in Vancouver BC that the U.S. is turning into a military country where his words are true as I see now.Obama cannot be trusted!

Innocent people? Who would those people be? You're granting the benefit of the doubt to these people as if they are suspected of shoplifting at Wal-Mart. It's a completely unrealistic view of the world that I've come to find many Ron Paul supporters have. We are not dealing with a law enforcement operation. We're dealing with matters of the life and death of American citizens from terrorism...with acts of war committed against America and her citizens. And you want to give these people who operate outside the bounds of international laws of war the same rights you and I have. I'm sorry, I just can't support that.


That's an unsupported opinion and your own interpretation. It may be correct, but it's worth pointing out it's not something you've supported.


Agreed.


Mostly agreed, though there are exceptions when we get into terrorism and taking up arms against the nation and her citizens. I agree that U.S. citizens captured on American soil should not be detained without trial or held as a enemy combatant. That's why we have the crime of treason, for which they should be tried and executed if convicted by a court of law.


1. The government is not going around wiretapping American citizens en masse. What you are referring to is the terrorist surveillance program, which monitored certain people based on calls coming from and going to suspicious sources. This happened post-9/11 and was disclosed to Congress, and reviewed every 90 days. Given the circumstances and what was actually done, I support it. Warrants were not realistic in these cases, even those from the FISA court. That court was not designed to approve the kind of surveillance we needed to do...only for specific numbers and people.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking into homes and seizing property" without a warrant. Examples?

3. I agree with the detaining without trial comment in most cases (as in I oppose doing that).

4. I'm going to disagree on "assassination." We don't have trials before we go to war and try to kill the enemy. Likewise, these people are not covered under Geneva because they are not affiliated with Nation-State's armed forces, even covertly. I fully support targeting and killing people oversees who our military and intelligence communities deem to be terrorists. It's war. What do you want to do..have a a trial in absentia, then capture them and give them the gas chamber? Come on. Again, it's an unrealistic view.


I don't but that argument. If you and I collected taxes from people's incomes under threat of force, that would be illegal too. It's not illegal for the government because they are empowered under the law and the U.S. Constitution do do so. The same applies to spying and killing...it depends on the circumstances and the reasons for which it's done. Stealing property without due process for American citizens is obviously wrong, which is one reason I think decisions like Kelo v. New London are an atrocity.


I disagree for the reasons stated above. You're oversimplifying what "these things" are. It's not murder if you kill someone on a battle field. It's not an "assassination" to kill bin laden, for example.

Yes, Jazz...spoken like a true Paulite. They'll just leave us alone if we leave them alone. Come on...we're not tlaking about meddling, we're talking about killing the enemy. I mean, really.


So you're saying that the right of a trial applies to everyone? What about nations at war? What about the Taliban? If there are no exceptions, there are no exceptions. The problem here again is that what you say sounds wonderful and is correct in principle. But in application it simply makes no sense. There have to be exceptions, and there has to be context. The founders never intended that people who are captured on the field of battle get trials or face a judge and jury before execution. They never contended with radical Muslims bent on the destruction of Western Civilization. War was totally different then, with uniformed armies marching in lines and columns and such. Jeez, by your definition our own independence was in violation of the Declaration. I mean, after all...we killed British troops...what did they ever do to us?

I'm really sure it's just that we poke at them with a stick. See, we'd have no enemies if we just left everyone alone. This is why Ron Paul should never be elected President. It's a dangerous view.


Yes.


Then why is it not OK to defend the nation from terrorists?


We're not talking about merely the growth and abuses of a large, omnipresent goverment. We're talking about killing people...for specific reasons.


OK. And we've made it clear that we are fighting Islamic fascism. What you're point?



I didn't claim that, you did. You said there were absolutely no exceptions. That means those British troops should have gotten trials before we shot at them. Of course, you and I know that's ridiculous. The point is that there are clearly exceptions in matters of war. Fighting terrorism in the modern world is one of them.


Look, I get it. Your view (like most Paul supporters, again) is that if a world event doesn't have a direct relationship to America, we shouldn't be involved in any way. That is the view I find unrealistic and against my principles. I believe that while we can't unilaterally be the world's police force, our power and influence comes with great responsibility. America is an exceptional nation, not merely a powerful one. We have a duty to stand up for what is right in the world. Sometimes, if our security is threatened (or that of an ally), we use military force. Sometimes we use diplomacy. Sometimes we use our economic influence. But we don't withdraw from the world and only look at what affects us directly. That's not who we are.

Islamic terror doesn't exist because we "occupy and bomb their countries." This is exactly the kind of lunacy that disqualified Paul from being taken seriously. It's a complete misunderstanding of why terrorism and anti-Americanism exists. You can wordsmith Paul all you want, but he believes we'd be left alone if we just went away.


We have certainly meddled at times and stuck our nose places it shouldn't be. That much I agree with.


Right, because it was US sanctions that caused bin Laden to plot 9/11. It's was U.S. sanctions that caused AQ attacks around the world. It was U.S. sanctions that caused NK to develop nuclear weapons. Jesus Effing Christ.


Be specific. Whose face? What should we stop?


I totally disagree. Completely. Defense is ongoing. It's not always military-related, but it's ongoing. Yours is a dangerous view.


Yes, they are.


They've been exceptionally clear. If you attack America...if you take up arms against her, you can be targeted.


That is not true.


That's the problem...you assume due process is required for everything, and its not. Giving people captured in battle the same rights as American citizens actually cheapens OUR rights.


A witch hunt? A witch hunt? Look, I think the TSA sucks and I have serious concerns with it. But it's not a "witch hunt."


You assume that a formal declaration of war is required at all times. I disagree. And in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, there were Congressional authorizations of force. Same thing, different name.



I oppose big government and don't agree with everything we do. I think we meddle where we should not, and have made many mistakes. I agree that we are losing our rights in many ways. But I don't agree we've become "fascist." That's just hyperbole.


Right, force is only acceptable when you say it's acceptable, even if it violates the principle you laid out earlier. Got it.


It's hard to say what we were intended to be in that sense, because the world is so much different and interconnected. What I know is how the world is. I simply look at our role differently than you and Ron Paul do. I don't buy that everything will be fine if we just stand down and shut up.

Yes, I understand. We've had this discussion before. However, the revolutionary war does not follow the principle. Don't pretend that the big, bad British just marched over and started to massacre people in the streets while we defended ourselves.

Nice response.

I understand your responses quite well. My feeling is simply that you and Paul share a view of foreign policy that is both unrealistic and dangerous.

Unrealistic and dangerous for treasonous war profiteers. Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy denies these parasites a sizable portion of their trillion dollar gravy train of corporate welfare.. and they might have to diversify into selling goods and services that are constructive for America and useful (and this profitable) to humanity at large.

The problem with this post is the same as Paul's statements and positions: There are elements of truth to it. Is the military-industrial complex too large and too influential? Yes. Do we get involved in too many things militarily? Yes. Do we need to restructure and reduce our oversees footprint? Yes. Do we stoke anti-Americanism with certain actions? Yes.

But that's where the wheels come off. Our own security would be dramatically affected in the short and long term by drastic military cuts, bringing all the troops home, by closing our foreign bases and by following the non-aggression principle. The world would burn, and it would bite us in the butt eventually. Terrorists would not stop targeting America and Americans. Iran would not halt it's nuclear ambitions, nor would North Korea. More people would go hungry without our foreign aide. Russia would grow in power and influence. All of things are bad, and all would happen while we sat there and watched.

The bottom line is the world is better with our influence, as is our own security. That's what Ron Paul his supporters don't get.

The size and reach of the (US) military industrial complex in relation to the US economy as a whole is a problem of disproportion that is way beyond solution. Since WWII (courtesy of the USSR threat, both the real and imaginary components), we have piled so much emphasis on "defense", "security" and related war products that in order to sustain some justification on the part of the public perception, this sector has had to be actively and perpetually engaged.

When the Communist Bloc self-imploded around 1990, the US was left high and dry, with a defense capability geared to taking on an "aggressive global superpower", which in a matter of weeks became an unsellable threat as they abandoned communism. We were all "dressed up, with nowhere to go". This was a problem: the defense sector needed a replacement that was equal in threat-stature to Hitler/Japan, or the USSR.

The US response to the changed geopolitical situation could have fallen anywhere in a spectrum with the two extremes: (a) Scaling down the US defense sector to be in proportion the reduced threat, all the way to (b) Maintaining or even accelerating the pace of growth of the defense sector.

Option (a) was a no go for politicians at state and federal levels, regardless of political leanings. So many jobs and businesses and communities throughout the country depend on the military industrial complex and related goods and services. Scaling back to this extent, cutting defense spending etc. etc. would have caused an economic melt-down, bankrupting countless businesses, throwing millions of people out of work, and trashing our trade balance.

As we all know, Option (b) was the way to go, for all of our sakes, like it or not. It just required the defense sector finding "somewhere to hang its hat" in order to maintain the public trust and justification for such astronomical expenditure.


If it were possible to scale down overseas military reach, it would have be done very slowly and gradually... perhaps starting with Western Europe?


Really? According to many historians, terrorists have targeted America and American interests on account of the complete opposite of what you are suggesting... ie US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, for example.


What is potentially more dangerous? A nuclear capable, but relatively stable Iran, or an Iran transformed into chaos through war, millions of angry young men, and the entire Islamic world alongside, enraged, yet again, with America, the West (and Israel?).


Is that a valid parameter in the world of realpolitik?


Russia is already growing in power and influence, after being broke and overrun with organized crime. Russia's recovery will happen regardless.


"Our influence".... there is the $multi-trillion issue. What kind of influence should the US have in the world? Respecting us for our strength and our commitment to rights and freedom? Or fearing us and hating us? Our image in the world is moving relentlessly from former to the latter, and as mentioned in the first paragraphs, we have no choice.

It's a done deal.... the "horse bolted the stable" decades ago and he's now a bleached skeleton somewhere in a distant creek bed. The only course open to us, to maintain a stable America, is a form of velvet-gloved totalitarianism. Thankfully, we are a huge country and its physical size will mitigate the effects of such on the public, perhaps to the extent that for many in rural and sparsely populated areas, life will go on pretty much as normal.

I agree with most of that.


That's a reasonable option. We probably don't need troops there in the numbers we have now.


That's an over-simplication. We'd not be left alone just because we remove those troops.


You're assuming that are not enraged already. That's the the issue...we're not going to avoid being hated by leaving Iran alone. Instead of strong and hated, we'll be weak and hated. I choose option A.


That's an odd question. I wasn't getting into the political realities, just stating something I thought was pretty obvious.


I'm not concerned about their recovery. I am concerned about their influence and power.


Again, an over-simplication.


We're not close to totalitarianism. Please.


That I agree with.

That is not what I said. I said that we are heading in that direction. Unless DC puts the brake on, which isn't likely, another 2 or 3 decades of what's gone down in recent years, and the notion of America as a "nation of liberty" will be dead and buried.


Politicians don't give a flying monkey about "foreign aid" unless it can be employed as good PR, or a potential vote winner.

Hey anyone else find it strange that Arizona is being sued by the Federal Government for attempting to detain illegal aliens, but there's apparently no problem with detaining American citizens?

Buy them votes, buy'em!!!